• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CDC Current Best Estimate of Covid-19 Morbidity Rate is 0.4%

Simon W. Moon said:
That means that Covid-19 has jacked up the daily death rate in the country by 15-20% this month

no biggie
Click to expand...

Yeah, the new right wing position here is **** the old, let them die, worthless takers.
 
NWRatCon said:
I'm not going to bother to read 2/3ds of this thread. It was started with a false premise and has been propagated by some of the sloppiest and extraneous thinking imaginable (with a couple of actual nuggets of information thrown in to keep me interested). The"best case" numbers in the CDC release are obviously, as has been noted, empirically questionable, given our "lived experience", which had me scratching my head. I've dug into the underlying document, and I have some idea why. This is based entirely upon March numbers. We've had a LOT of experience since then. Secondly, the parameters are based upon the most conservative of available numbers, the "Preliminary COVID-19 estimates" - we're talking about data that is not only very old, but is based upon "earliest best guess". It's not ENTIRELY garbage, but why they chose to put this out now is a real question. (My guess is to "control the narrative" - i.e., a political, not scientific rationale.*)

Although it should be noted that 0.4 is ridiculously optimistic, that is still 3 times more deadly than a typical flu. I've personally used a "conservative" number of 0.65, which is what early models used - and those models have proved most accurate. Even a rough estimate yields a ballpark in that range: A "bad" flu year (7-9 month season) is 60,000 fatalities. Assume the high end, that's 285 deaths a day. We've been at this 2-3 months, averaging 1200+ deaths a day. At the LOW end that about 4.5 times a bad flu season - which also happens to correlate with a .65% mortality rate. If the CDC number were accurate, we'd be looking at 69,781 deaths - which does not comport with actual reporting. I'm going to stick to my number, thankyouverymuch. So far the IHME projections have been spot on, so I think I'll trust them on this.

*There is an alternative explanation: This is a cry for help from the scientists at CDC - by putting this document out, they are letting other scientists know that/how their work is being manipulated by "leadership".
Click to expand...

This site has actually been a lot better than IMHE. h/t Threegoofs

COVID-19 Projections Using Machine Learning | We take a data-driven approach rooted in epidemiology to forecast infections and deaths from the COVID-19 / coronavirus epidemic in the US and around the world
 
Drawdown said:
The per capita death rates in New York and NJ are astronomical compared to the rest of the states. You can chose to ignore realty if you so desire. I prefer that we figure out why the disparity you pretend doesn't exist actually does exist.

• U.S. COVID-19 death rate by state | Statista
Click to expand...
I presented you reality. You can't discount the majority of real-world cases occurring in the country, and discard them as outliers to support your theory.

And would you be good enough to illuminate where your source displays your claimed 0.4% fatality rate?
 
Chomsky said:
Well yeah, you may have argued this consistently over recent time. But with all respect, none of your quotes above present data supporting your argument. No differently than the OP article which presents theory, save for the section where the real world example (NY) seems to disprove the theory.
Click to expand...

Actually the "real world" including NY State provided evidence via greater levels of testing which showed many times the number of people beyond those "confirmed cases" who already had antibodies. That meant that they had already got infected and beat it off often without even realizing they were infected.

That's basically what "herd immunity" is. Members of the group whose immune systems are efficient enough to recognize and then defeat an infection before it has a chance to either harm them, or spread to someone else from them.

So where do you think these new CDC projections are coming from? Someone's posterior orifice?
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
So where do you think these new CDC projections are coming from? Someone's posterior orifice?
Click to expand...
That's actually the most astute observation I've ever seen you make. Well done.
 
If the CDC estimate is correct, that means that they are estimating that the infection rate is about 30-50% higher than the tested rate.
 
Variant said:
It's a problem our country chooses to do nothing about and has the worst problem with.



The situations aren't even remotely similar.

You get covid from hanging out in the wrong elevator or touching the wrong door nob (accidental), not long term overeating (obvious long term choice).
Click to expand...
Who said they were caused the same way? I think you're mistaking me for someone else.
 
Chomsky said:
I presented you reality. You can't discount the majority of real-world cases occurring in the country, and discard them as outliers to support your theory.

And would you be good enough to illuminate where your source displays your claimed 0.4% fatality rate?
Click to expand...

I haven't claimed a 0.4% fatality rate. I present you reality. You ignore it. Nothing more I can do to amuse you. New York is the death capitol of the country.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Actually the "real world" including NY State provided evidence via greater levels of testing which showed many times the number of people beyond those "confirmed cases" who already had antibodies. That meant that they had already got infected and beat it off often without even realizing they were infected.

That's basically what "herd immunity" is. Members of the group whose immune systems are efficient enough to recognize and then defeat an infection before it has a chance to either harm them, or spread to someone else from them.

So where do you think these new CDC projections are coming from? Someone's posterior orifice?
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the hypothesis that we have many diagnosed, and I do believe it to be true. In fact, I wouldn't doubt if the virus was here much earlier than thought, perhaps even last year. But I haven't seen any substantial evidence for the 0.4% number.

However we do have reams of data for the cases we are aware of, and last I checked in real-world conditions it seems to be running between 3-4% Stateside.

Until I see multiple credible studies in support, I'll accept 0.4 as an unproven theory. Perhaps it will be proven. But until then, I'm going by what we currently see in front of us. That's not to say I'm not open to accepting credible data to the contrary, if it were to come to my attention.
 
Chomsky said:
Until I see multiple credible studies in support, I'll accept 0.4 as an unproven theory. Perhaps it will be proven. But until then, I'm going by what we currently see in front of us. That's not to say I'm not open to accepting credible data to the contrary, if it were to come to my attention.
Click to expand...
How very scientific of you, my friend. ;)
 
Drawdown said:
I haven't claimed a 0.4% fatality rate.
Click to expand...
You responded to my post where I disputed the 0.4% number.

So what was it exactly that you were disputing in my post?

I present you reality. You ignore it. Nothing more I can do to amuse you. New York is the death capitol of the country.
Click to expand...
NY, NJ, CHI, those three cities make up the majority of the American cases. So how can you simply discard their data?

Throw in the rest of the cities, and you have 80% of the American population and at least that much of the cases. So how can you not say this is the American reality? The reality for the vast majority of us?

It seems to me you're trying to pick some laboratory type cherry-picked example from a rural area, and disregard the vast majority of the citizenry.
 
NWRatCon said:
How very scientific of you, my friend. ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks!

But is there any other sensible way to go through life, than being open-minded, without pre-conceived notions, objectively assessing what you see come before yourself?

There's nothing worse in life, than self-deception. Just ask any addict in recovery! Life is full of individuals that suffer all sorts of maladies and problems, due to the inability to be fully honest with themselves.

And of course: numbers, of themselves, never lie.

(I realize there's a lot of adjunct corollaries to this last)
 
Wayne Jr said:
Who said they were caused the same way? I think you're mistaking me for someone else.
Click to expand...

You were saying they should be treated similarly. If they were remotely similar, such an argument would make more sense.

Since my sickly parents can't catch their neighbors obesity, I am less compelled to care about it from a social standpoint.
 
JasperL said:
Only if you look at the drop in cases after shutdown as coincidence. And there was a recent study that found if NYC shut down just a week earlier, the area would have seen FAR fewer death. WTF are you talking about. Read my point and try again. The point is if there are lots of cases, like in NY, then a natural consequence of that is retirement homes, jails, etc. also get hit hard since those in the general population WORK in nursing homes, and it takes ONE sick worker or visitor or delivery person person to infect ONE resident, and that's all a nursing home needs for a major outbreak. How do you protect nursing homes when 20% of the workers are getting sick? 1/3 of all infected don't show symptoms but are spreaders. Those who show symptoms might take a week after they are contagious to show symptoms. Regular testing is good, but that wasn't possible in April, because the greatest country in the world couldn't be bothered to get enough tests to do that. LOL, that's the dumbest reason to believe something I've ever seen - two people from different political ideologies agree on the path of the economy... And Larry Kudlow is Trump's economic cheerleader. There's a 100% chance he'll say the economy will do fantastic under Trump's incredible leadership, etc. blah blah. So you can throw him out as irrelevant. He was cheering Bush II on as the economy was crashing during the early weeks of the Great Recession. Look up Kudlow Goldilocks if you want... E.g. New Trump Economist Kudlow Has Been Wrong About Everything
Click to expand...
You are still going to run into the same problem. More than 40% of the deaths come from the 1% of the population in care facilities. The shutdown was horrifically costly and achieved almost nothing. Only isolating the assisted living communities has worked. It's simple science.

Don't believe Kudlow if you want. Believe the Obama guy, instead.
 
Jay59 said:
You are still going to run into the same problem. More than 40% of the deaths come from the 1% of the population in care facilities. The shutdown was horrifically costly and achieved almost nothing. Only isolating the assisted living communities has worked. It's simple science.
Click to expand...

You're WRONG!

Why say more - you're not bothering to even read replies much less address comments...

Don't believe Kudlow if you want. Believe the Obama guy, instead.
Click to expand...

I don't care that he's an "Obama guy," so I'll think for myself and not believe either one.
 
JasperL said:
You're WRONG!
Click to expand...
To the contrary, those numbers are scientific facts.

Why say more - you're not bothering to even read replies much less address comments...
Click to expand...
I do read your long-winded statements, though you make it difficult.

Here is the thing. Facts are stubborn. They do not care about your preconceptions or your feelings. You have to make accommodations for them, not the other way around. The problem you have is that the facts are against you here. The fact, in its simplest form, is that this is a very survivable disease, with one significant exception.

I don't care that he's an "Obama guy," so I'll think for myself and not believe either one.
Click to expand...
This is harder. I cannot help if you are prejudiced.
 
Jay59 said:
To the contrary, those numbers are scientific facts.

I do read your long-winded statements, though you make it difficult.

Here is the thing. Facts are stubborn. They do not care about your preconceptions or your feelings. You have to make accommodations for them, not the other way around. The problem you have is that the facts are against you here. The fact, in its simplest form, is that this is a very survivable disease, with one significant exception.
Click to expand...

You quoted me several times and ignored every single argument I made. I don't see the point continuing...

This is harder. I cannot help if you are prejudiced.
Click to expand...

I explained why IMO we'd not see a V shaped recovery, and don't care that anyone else disagrees. It's bizarre and kind of stupid you'd call having a mind of one's own being "prejudiced."

FWIW, I'll add I know more than a few actual economists and they have a very impressive expertise in lots of economic matters, mostly evaluating/analyzing data. But I also know they as a group have no more 'insight' into the future than anyone else paying attention, especially with unique, once in a lifetime events like COVID 19. Their degree or professional qualifications don't give them a crystal ball about what the virus is going to do in, say, August-December, which is IMO key to knowing what the economy will do in the 3rd and 4th quarters. IMO a V shaped recovery means the virus is a non-issue for most people going forward, and I don't think that will be the case.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
I'm aware of the hypothesis that we have many diagnosed, and I do believe it to be true. In fact, I wouldn't doubt if the virus was here much earlier than thought, perhaps even last year. But I haven't seen any substantial evidence for the 0.4% number. However we do have reams of data for the cases we are aware of, and last I checked in real-world conditions it seems to be running between 3-4% Stateside. Until I see multiple credible studies in support, I'll accept 0.4 as an unproven theory. Perhaps it will be proven. But until then, I'm going by what we currently see in front of us. That's not to say I'm not open to accepting credible data to the contrary, if it were to come to my attention.
Click to expand...
There are multiple studies, because this is confirming an earlier study. The 0.4% figure is within rounding error of a much discussed Stanford study from a month ago.
 
JasperL said:
You quoted me several times and ignored every single argument I made.
Click to expand...
I quoted you and gave you the relevant facts, then insisted that you address the facts, often more than once.

With regard to the virus, it is a very survivable, except for a very narrow section of our population. We have made the bonehead mistake of exposing that section, when we should have sought to prevent exposure. For the most part, the shut down has had no impact because 99% (that's not an exaggerated number, literally more than 99%) of the population was never at mortal risk

I don't see the point continuing...I explained why IMO we'd not see a V shaped recovery, and don't care that anyone else disagrees. It's bizarre and kind of stupid you'd call having a mind of one's own being "prejudiced."

FWIW, I'll add I know more than a few actual economists and they have a very impressive expertise in lots of economic matters, mostly evaluating/analyzing data. But I also know they as a group have no more 'insight' into the future than anyone else paying attention, especially with unique, once in a lifetime events like COVID 19. Their degree or professional qualifications don't give them a crystal ball about what the virus is going to do in, say, August-December, which is IMO key to knowing what the economy will do in the 3rd and 4th quarters. IMO a V shaped recovery means the virus is a non-issue for most people going forward, and I don't think that will be the case.
Click to expand...
On the economics, we will see soon enough. Furman's exact phrasing is, "We are about to see." I take that to mean weeks or months, but not quarters or years.

You have one thing completely correct. The virus is a non-issue for most people going forward.
 
Jay59 said:
With regard to the virus, it is a very survivable, except for a very narrow section of our population. We have made the bonehead mistake of exposing that section, when we should have sought to prevent exposure. For the most part, the shut down has had no impact because 99% (that's not an exaggerated number, literally more than 99%) of the population was never at mortal risk
Click to expand...
That is incredibly naive, to not call it utterly stupid. Just how exactly do you suppose that even if we were to take your totally baseless number, we protect 3.2 million people?
 
prometeus said:
That is incredibly naive, to not call it utterly stupid. Just how exactly do you suppose that even if we were to take your totally baseless number, we protect 3.2 million people?
Click to expand...
Jay loves to make stuff up, unfettered by any anchor in reality.
 
Chomsky said:
You responded to my post where I disputed the 0.4% number.

So what was it exactly that you were disputing in my post?

NY, NJ, CHI, those three cities make up the majority of the American cases. So how can you simply discard their data?

Throw in the rest of the cities, and you have 80% of the American population and at least that much of the cases. So how can you not say this is the American reality? The reality for the vast majority of us?

It seems to me you're trying to pick some laboratory type cherry-picked example from a rural area, and disregard the vast majority of the citizenry.
Click to expand...
My friend, you miss the methodology. Cities are populated by Democrats/liberals. They therefore don't "count" in any calculus, and can be completely ignored to prove that a point devoid of reality is somehow "true" because he has said it is so. You are far too devoted to unimportant considerations like facts, reality, and logic.
 
Chomsky said:
Thanks!

But is there any other sensible way to go through life, than being open-minded, without pre-conceived notions, objectively assessing what you see come before yourself?

There's nothing worse in life, than self-deception. Just ask any addict in recovery! Life is full of individuals that suffer all sorts of maladies and problems, due to the inability to be fully honest with themselves.

And of course: numbers, of themselves, never lie.

(I realize there's a lot of adjunct corollaries to this last)
Click to expand...
I completely agree, which is why I devote an inordinate amount of time checking myself. I hate to be wrong, so I avoid it like COVID-19. That is a condition a certain cadre of posters cares not a whit about, being utterly shameless, so a blatant falsehood trumps any evidence you care to provide, so long as it serves the narrative, no matter how destructive or immoral.
 
prometeus said:
That is incredibly naive, to not call it utterly stupid. Just how exactly do you suppose that even if we were to take your totally baseless number, we protect 3.2 million people?
Click to expand...
Don't be shy. Tell us what you really think.;)

It is not incredibly naive. The short answer is, masks, gloves, social media instead of face to face, and lots of testing. See how Florida did things in their care facilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom